Tuesday, 30 October 2007

Ample evidence to support the theory that the greater the degree of religious fervour the more ignorant the basis of the individual's belief system! Unfortunately these crazy bastards can't be ignored because they wield a lot of power. It's easy to read stories like this and come to the conclusion that the human race is utterly screwed! As the late great Bill Hicks says, "If it's a choice between heaven and new kids on the block or hell and good tunes - I'm going to be rockin' out on the lake of fire!" and I will be there with him. If heaven is non-smoking and non-drinking then fuck em'; I don't want in!

Utopian fantasies have long transfixed the human race. Yet today a much rarer fantasy has become popular in the United States. Millions of Americans, the richest people in history, have a death wish. They are the new “Armageddonites,” fundamentalist evangelicals who have moved from forecasting Armageddon to actually trying to bring it about.

Most journalists find it difficult to take seriously that tens of millions of Americans, filled with fantasies of revenge and empowerment, long to leave a world they despise. These Armageddonites believe that they alone will get a quick, free pass when they are “raptured” to paradise, no good deeds necessary, not even a day of judgment. Ironically, they share this utopian fantasy with a group that they often castigate, namely fundamentalist Muslims who believe that dying in battle also means direct access to Heaven. For the Armageddonites, however, there are no waiting virgins, but they do agree with Muslims that there will be “no booze, no bars,” in the words of a popular Gaither Singers song.

These end-timers have great influence over the U.S. government’s foreign policy. They are thick with the Republican leadership. At a recent conference in Washington, congressional leader Roy Blunt, for example, has said that their work is "part of God's plan." At the same meeting, where speakers promoted attacking Iran, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay glorified “end times.” Indeed the Bush administration often consults with them on Mideast policies. The organizer of the conference, Rev. John Hagee, is often welcomed at the White House, although his ratings are among the lowest on integrity and transparency by Ministry Watch, which rates religious broadcasters. He raises millions of dollars from his campaign supporting Israeli settlements on the West Bank, including much for himself. Erstwhile presidential candidate Gary Bauer is on his Board of Directors. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson also both expressed strong end-times beliefs.

American fundamentalists strongly supported the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. They consistently support Israel’s hard-line policies. And they are beating the drums for war against Iran. Thanks to these end-timers, American foreign policy has turned much of the world against us, including most Muslims, nearly a quarter of the human race.

Friday, 26 October 2007

Totally digusting, not only is the government blatantly ignoring the rule of law on account of the exiled islanders but allowed the US government to torture people makes the whole thing utterly sordid. It makes you thoroughly ashamed to be British!

One of the more sordid and long-running stories in Anglo-American colonial history -- that of Diego Garcia, the chief island of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean -- reared its ugly head again on Friday when the UK's all-party foreign affairs committee announced plans to investigate long-standing allegations that the CIA has, since 2002, held and interrogated al-Qaeda suspects at a secret prison on the island.

The shameful tale of Diego Garcia began in 1961, when it was marked out by the US military as a crucial geopolitical base. Ignoring the fact that 2,000 people already lived there, and that the island -- a British colony since the fall of Napoleon -- had been settled in the late 18th century by French coconut planters, who shipped in African- and Indian-born laborers from Mauritius, establishing what John Pilger called "a gentle Creole nation with thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a prison, a railway, docks, a copra plantation," the Labor government of Harold Wilson conspired with the administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to "sweep" and "sanitize" the islands (the words come from American documents that were later declassified).

Although many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, a British Foreign Office official wrote in 1966 that the government's aim was "to convert all the existing residents ... into short-term, temporary residents," so that they could be exiled to Mauritius. Having removed the "Tarzans or Men Fridays," as another British memo described the inhabitants, the British effectively ceded control of the islands to the Americans, who established a base on Diego Garcia, which, over the years, has become known as "Camp Justice," complete with "over 2,000 troops, anchorage for 30 warships, a nuclear dump, a satellite spy station, shopping malls, bars and a golf course." So thoroughly were the islands cleared, and so stealthy the procedure, that in the 1970s the British Ministry of Defence had the effrontery to insist, "There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation."

Suffering in exile, the Chagos islanders have struggled in vain to secure the right to return to their ancestral home, winning a stunning victory in the High Court in 2000, which ruled their expulsion illegal, but then suffering a setback in 2003, when, with typically high-handed authoritarianism, Tony Blair invoked an ancient and archaic "royal prerogative" to strike down their claims once more. Although the appeal court reversed this decision in May 2006, ruling that the islanders' right to return was "one of the most fundamental liberties known to human beings," it remains to be seen how this belated judicial recognition of their rights can be squared with the Americans' insistence that their military-industrial archipelago must remain unsullied by outsiders.

In their resistance to the islanders' claims, Blair and the Foreign Office were clearly protecting the interests of their American allies, for whom the geopolitical importance of Diego Garcia as a strategic base had recently been augmented by its use, and the use of some of the ships moored there, as fabulously remote offshore prisons in which to hold and interrogate "high-value" al-Qaeda suspects.

The latest update on Zundel, as I've said before one may not agree with him but that is still no reason to lock him up and try to break him. We should all have a right to spout whatever wisdom/craziness we want to regardless of who disagrees with us.

Intermittently, I reported that there were huge problems in Mannheim with Ernst's mail in that many letters did not seem to reach him. We tried repeatedly t get to the bottom of this miserable situation but were blocked at every turn.

Now this latest, received today:

[START] Surprise, Surprise! I was called to the "Kammer" yesterday and told that I could go through two large boxes of mail that were never processed by Dr. Meinerzhagen.

Ingrid, some scheme that was from that man! So far, I have found 15 thick letters from C. M. over 2 1/2 years that were never even looked at - unopened! I found four letters from [Attorney] Doug Christie. I found three letters so far from [Attorney] Barbara K., - her and Doug's Christmas cards from 2006-2006! Lots of letters from K.S., likewise. Several letters from Jerome Brentar [an old friend who has since passed away ].

Simply unbelievable what was done! Incredibly kind, encouraging, uplifting letters! I will have days of sorting, weeks to respond and to answer people's questions. I'll report more tomorrow, worked 20 hours on it yesterday.

Christmas cards for three years - many, many hundreds of them never given to me. Imagine! And I thought Toronto West [Detention Cenre] was bad! I would never have believed this if someone had told me this could happen in our homeland at this age and time when "Human Rights" and "Human Dignity" are on everybody's lips! [END]

If you write to Ernst, please include Euro postage - 55 cents for a letter within Germany [Europe?] and 1.70 Euros for overseas.

Ernst is allowed to receive up to three postage stamps per letter. International coupons won't do him any good. Self-addressed return envelopes might work. I am not sure, but I would think that small amounts in US$ cash might also be passed on. Ernst does not have access to his own funds except for only 30 Euros spending money per month.

Wednesday, 24 October 2007

This is just great! Not only can we not smoke on open-air train station platforms now all us smokers will need a permit?!?! At least that's the idea of one of those neo-fascists advising government. There is this idea that they can force people to do what they won't do otherwise. Am I the only one who thinks that this is Big Brother 1984 bullshit? Didn't Winston Smith have to do morning exercises with the TV watching him? That is where Professor Julian Le Grand's line of thinking takes us!

Now slaves, repeat after me:

War is peaceFreedom is slaveryIgnorance is strength

War is peaceFreedom is slaveryIgnorance is strength

War is peaceFreedom is slaveryIgnorance is strength

A radical plan to persuade people to stop smoking, take more exercise and change their diets was proposed last night by a leading Government adviser.

As new figures were published yesterday showing that England tops the European league as the fattest nation in the EU, Professor Julian Le Grand, chair of Health England and a former senior Downing Street aide to Tony Blair, said a completely fresh approach was required by Government to reverse the epidemic of obesity and to tackle similar ills caused by "excess consumption".

In a speech to the Royal Statistical Society last night, Professor Le Grand said instead of requiring people to make healthy choices – by giving up smoking, taking more exercise and eating less salt – policies should be framed so the healthy option is automatic and people have to choose deliberately to depart from it.

Among his suggestions are a proposal for a smoking permit, which smokers would have to produce when buying cigarettes, an "exercise hour" to be provided by all large companies for their employees and a ban on salt in processed food.

The idea, dubbed "libertarian paternalism", reverses the traditional government approach that requires individuals to opt in to healthy schemes. Instead, they would have to opt out to make the unhealthy choice, by buying a smoking permit, choosing not to participate in the exercise hour or adding salt at the table.

By preserving individual choice, the approach could be defended against charges of a "nanny state," he said. "Some people say this is paternalism squared. But at a fundamental level, you are not being made to do anything. It is not like banning something, it is not prohibition. It is a softer form of paternalism."

The proposal is in line with plans under consideration at the Department of Health. Yesterday, it was revealed Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, is considering routinely sending parents details of height and weight measurements of their children at ages 5 and 10, so they are aware if their children are becoming obese. Under the current arrangements, parents are only given the information if they request it.

A report published yesterday shows England has the highest proportion of heavyweight adults in the European Union with 24.2 per cent of the population designated obese. The Health Profile of England 2007, published yesterday, reveals the obesity rate in this country is almost twice that in Germany (12.9 per cent) and two and a half times that in France (9.4 per cent.) An obese person dies on average nine years earlier than a person of normal weight and those who are extremely obese (with a body mass index over 45) have their lives cut short by an average of 13 years.

In his speech, Professor Le Grand attacked the report from the Foresight group of scientific experts published last week, which blamed the obesity explosion on an "obesogenic" environment where energy dense cheap food was readily available and sedentary lifestyles were the norm and said individuals could no longer be held responsible.

He said the analysis was "not very helpful" and presented the growth of obesity as so enormous and complex a problem that solving it seemed impossible.

From TBRnews.org - the home of Voice of the Whitehouse. Some excellent reporting on modern censorship in the news. I have not pasted the whole article, click the link at the bottom to read the full thing. Well worth it!

Editor’s note: We have always taken a highly dubious view of the many stories of a conspiratorial nature that have sprung up after the 9/11 attack. It is obvious that many are not based on facts nor logic but the continuing flood of doubt certainly indicates that the American public is generally disillusioned and has turned to theory to explain matters that to them cannot be explained away. Some of this questioning is very much to the point and it is very obvious that much has been put out as deliberate disinformation. However, when we received the attached article, we read it through very carefully, prepared to push the delete button but of all the various theories and suppositions offered to date, it makes the most sense. And, unlike many other suppositions and theories, it stands up will to the application of known, provable facts. So in this issue, we will devote almost all the space to this article and would certainly welcome reasoned responses. The Editor

Controlling the News

Some three months ago, I assumed my duties at a national media chain.

Shortly after I arrived, a senior staff member, a woman of some age and great determination, took ill with what was diagnosed as a form of cancer and she had to take a protracted medical leave to have it treated. After she had been gone a month, corporate became concerned because she was the one who received and allotted stories on national security.

Her prognosis was guarded ,so my immediate superior, at the top of the food chain, told me to look into her files and see if there was anything that might be needed currently. She had four large filing cabinets in her office, all locked. Before having them opened, I checked with the staff at her clinic and explained our position.

Her oncologist told me that she might recover in time but would not be able to return to work for at least six months. Later that night, we had a discreet locksmith come into the building. I personally guided them past our security people downstairs in the lobby. It took about five minutes to open all the locks and they then left.

For the next three days, I personally waded through hundreds of files going back to the Eisenhower presidency. Most of the material was interesting but little of it was of any current use.

However, in one cabinet, there were stacks of what appeared, and later proved , to be copies sent to our staffer by Israeli sources, both from the Israeli Embassy people in D.C. and from other sources in Israel. These were very interesting (to say the very least) and many bore on the current situation in the Middle East.

One file in particular was astonishing.

It was an Israeli post mortem analysis of the 9-11 attack, complied from their inside sources in May of 2003, and one of the most remarkable historical chronicles I have ever read.

That file in particular had a note with her name printed at the top that it was never to be shown to anyone under any circumstances. Reading it through, I can see why. I put all the other files back in place and made photo copies of some of the more sensitive ones before doing so.

That’s the background. And here is the complete report.

You will note that there are a number of comments and explanations in italics. Those are mine and are taken from reliable sources and duly noted.

Insofar as controlling the news is concerned, this is a prime, even classic, example of that oeuvre. When you read it, you will understand why no media outlet in the United States would ever dare address its contents.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON AMERICAN TARGETS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH APPROPRIATE BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Initial attack on the World Trade Center

On Friday, February 26, 1993, at approximately 12:18 PM, a huge car bomb exploded in the Secret Service section of the underground garage of the World Trade Center in New York. The blast killed five people and injured many more The concrete ceiling over the Path subway station collapsed and the casualties were killed by the debris. The blast destroyed three floors of reinforced concrete and set off fires that sent dense clouds of smoke up into one of the two towers. Power was interdicted and the lighting and elevator systems were not functioning.

Many thousands of office workers had to be evacuated . There was great chaos in the building with occupants breaking windows to get air and filling the stairwells with a panic stricken mass of fleeing people. This attack was the work of a handful of amateur Muslims who were soon apprehended and tried. Four of them, Nidal Ayvad, Mohammed Salameh, Amad Ajaj and Mahmud Aboulhalma were tried and convicted of this act and in May of 1994 were sent to prison for life. Their putative leader, one Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a New York area religious leader, was also sentenced to life for his controlling role in the attack.

The issues of this bomb attack were quite simple. Muslim fundamentalists had tried to destroy a major American financial institution. That they were amateurs and very inept was beside the point. Other, better organized and funded groups would note the disruption and panic and use it for future such attempts.

The Americans are not anywhere as competent in dealing with terrorists as we are. We have been intimately involved with them since before 1948. As usual, the American media made a large production of it for about a week and then it simply vanished.

The attitude of the Clinton administration was that they did not want to disturb the American Muslim population and in the end, viewed the attack as an aberration that was unlikely to be repeated. The terrorists were viewed as a group of rank amateurs and the matter was not pursued. We have good rapport with the Central Intelligence Agency and have many of our people employed there but this is a domestic matter and these internal matters are addressed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation which is not as friendly with us as other agencies. They have been instructed to cooperate with our people on such things but are very sparing in this cooperation. In summation, the Americans did not learn from this attack and this will be dealt with later in this report.

Monday, 22 October 2007

An excellent piece by Norman Baker MP reiterating what we here at codshit.com have been saying for years!

DR DAVID KELLY WAS ASSASINATED!!!!

For Tony Blair it was a glorious day. He was in the United States being feted by the U.S. Congress and President Bush.

Their adulation was such that he was being offered the rare honour of a Congressional Gold Medal.

Naturally enough, Bush and his administration were hugely grateful for Blair's decision to join the United States in its invasion of Iraq.

That invasion was supposed to lead to the discovery and disposal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and make the world a safer place.

But as Blair was lapping up the grateful plaudits from the U.S. Congress on July 17, 2003, the man who had done more than almost any other individual on earth to contain the threat from WMD lay dead in the woods at Harrowdown Hill in Oxfordshire.

For Dr David Kelly, the UK's leading weapons inspector, there was to be no adulation, no medal, no standing ovation.

His life ended in the cold, lonely wood where he was found the next morning, his left wrist cut open, and three nearly-empty blister packs of painkillers in his jacket pocket.

His death was, of course, sensational front-page news. Dr Kelly, unknown to almost everybody at the beginning of that July, had in recent days barely been absent from media headlines.

Much to his chagrin he had been thrust into the harsh glare of publicity, accused of being the mole who expressed to the BBC deep concerns about the Government's "sexing up" of its dossier on weapons of mass destruction.

For Blair - accused of misusing, exaggerating or even inventing intelligence in order to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - the stakes could not have been higher.

This was undoubtedly the greatest crisis of his premiership to date.

To add fuel to the flames, his director of communications, Alastair Campbell, had launched an unprecedented and vitriolic attack on the BBC, questioning its integrity and professionalism in the way it reported the story.

Suddenly finding himself under tremendous personal pressure, it seemed that Dr Kelly had buckled and decided to commit suicide.

That, at least, was the official version of events, as decided by the Hutton inquiry, set up by the Government with lightning speed within hours of Dr Kelly's body being found.

The media, the political establishment, indeed almost everybody accepted Lord Hutton's verdict. But the more I examined it, the more it became clear to me that Hutton's judgment was faulty and suspect in virtually all important respects.

I was not alone in these suspicions. Letters began to appear in the press from leading medical specialists, in which they queried the suicide verdict.

The letters were well argued, raising profound and disturbing questions that remain unanswered to this day.

Increasingly concerned, I decided to give up my post on the Liberal Democrat front bench to look into Dr Kelly's death.

My investigations have since convinced me that it is nigh- on clinically impossible for Dr Kelly to have died by his own hand and that both his personality and the other circumstantial evidence strongly militate against suicide.

Given that his death was clearly not an accident, that leaves only one alternative - that he must have been murdered.

This is not a conclusion I have come to lightly. I simply set out to examine the facts, to test the evidence, and to follow the trail wherever it took me.

The account I give in this series may not be correct in all respects, but I suggest that it is rather more credible than the verdict reached by Lord Hutton.

I certainly believe there are enough doubts, enough questions, enough of a smell of stinking fish to justify re-opening this episode officially.

My investigations have been a journey into the unknown, and one that has taken many peculiar turns. Perhaps the most sinister came soon after starting my inquiries last year.

After writing a newspaper article outlining my early concerns, I found myself on a train speeding towards Exeter to see a man who had agreed to meet me only on condition of anonymity and after some rather circuitous arrangements.

These involved much complicated use of public telephone boxes to minimise the chance that his contact with me could be traced.

Finally, we talked over a glass of wine in a rather nondescript club.

He told me that he had recently retired but had connections to both the police and the security services, a claim which I subsequently verified through careful checks.

Like me, he had many doubts about the true circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death and he had begun making his own surreptitious inquiries around Southmoor, the Oxfordshire village which was Dr Kelly's home.

Posing as a freelance journalist, he had attempted to contact the key policemen involved in investigating the case. In this he was unsuccessful but within an hour he received an unexpected return call.

The person on the other end of the line did not bother with formalities, but instead cut to the quick. How would my contact welcome a full tax inspection of his business, VAT, national insurance, the lot?

Life could be made very difficult, he was told. How did he fancy having no money?

Naturally, this prospect did not appeal, and there he left matters until, at a wedding, he chanced upon an old friend whom he described to me initially as a very senior civil servant, but later as a "spook" from MI6.

He told his friend of his interest in the Kelly affair and also of the threatening phone call he had received.

His friend's reply was a serious one: he should be careful, particularly when using his phone or his computer. Moreover, he should let the Kelly matter drop.

But my contact did not do so. Two weeks later he met his friend again, this time in a pub, and pressed him on the matter.

>{? His friend took him outside, and as they stood in the cool air, told him Dr Kelly's death had been "a wet operation, a wet disposal".

He also warned him in very strong terms to leave the matter well alone. This time he decided to heed the warning.

I asked my contact to explain what he understood by the terms his friend had used. Essentially, it seems to refer to an assassination, perhaps carried out in a hurry.

A few months later, I called my contact to check one or two points of his story. He told me that three weeks after our meeting in Exeter, his house had been broken into and his laptop - containing all his material on Kelly - had been stolen. Other valuable goods, including a camera and an LCD television, had been left untouched.

It was sobering to be given such a clear indication that Dr Kelly had been murdered, but the scientist himself appears to have been fully aware that his work made him a target for assassins.

British diplomat David Broucher told the Hutton inquiry that, some months before Dr Kelly's death, he had asked him what would happen if Iraq were invaded.

Rather chillingly, Dr Kelly replied that he "would probably be found dead in the woods".

At the inquiry, this was construed as meaning that he had already had suicidal thoughts. That, of course, is patently absurd.

Nobody can seriously suggest that he was suicidal at the time the meeting took place - yet Lord Hutton seems to have made his mind up about the way in which DrKelly died before the inquiry even began.

The result is a series of gaping, unresolved anomalies.

Crucially, in his report, Hutton declared that the principal cause of death was bleeding from a selfinflicted knife wound on Dr Kelly's left wrist.

Yet Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination on DrKelly, stated that he had cut only one blood vessel - the ulnar artery.

Since the arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness, severing just one of them does not lead to life-threatening blood loss, especially if it is cut crossways, the method apparently adopted by DrKelly, rather than along its length.

The artery simply retracts and stops bleeding.

As a scientist who would have known more about human anatomy than most, DrKelly was particularly unlikely to have targeted the ulnar artery. Buried deep in the wrist, it can only be accessed through the extremely painful process of cutting through nerves and tendons.

It is not common for those who commit suicide to wish to inflict significant pain on themselves as part of the process.

In Dr Kelly's case, the unlikelihood is compounded by the suggestion that his chosen instrument-was a blunt pruning knife.

This would only have increased the pain and would have failed to cut the artery cleanly, thereby hastening the clotting process.

Statistics bear out the extremely low incidence of individuals dying by cutting the ulnar artery, with only one recorded case in Britain during the entire year of Dr Kelly's death.

Given that the average human body contains ten pints of blood, and that about half of these must be lost before death ensues, we must also ask ourselves why there were clear signs at the postmortem-that Dr Kelly had retained much of his blood.

We cannot be sure exactly how much since, inexplicably, the pathologist's report does not provide an estimate of the residual volume, but what he did record was the appearance of "livor mortis" on Dr Kelly's body.

This purplish-red discolouration of the skin occurs when the heart is no longer pumping and blood begins to settle in the lower part of the body. But if Dr Kelly had bled to death, as we are led to believe, then significant livor mortis would not have occurred. Put simply, there would not have been enough blood in his body.

More significant still, while the effects of five pints of blood spurting from a body could not easily be hidden, the members of the search party who found his body did not even notice that Dr Kelly had apparently incised his wrist with a knife.

Their arrival was followed by that of paramedics who pointedly referred to the fact that there was remarkably little blood around the body.

If the idea that blood loss brought about Dr Kelly's death is flawed, still less plausible is the suggestion that he chose an overdose to quicken his end.

Mai Pederson, a close friend of DrKelly's, has confirmed that he hated all types of tablets and had an aversion even to swallowing a headache pill.

Yet we are told that he removed from his house three blister packs, each containing ten of the co-proxamol painkillers which his wife Janice took for her arthritis.

Each of these oval pills was about half an inch long. Since there was only one tablet left, the implication is that he had swallowed 29 of them. If this is right, we are being asked to believe that Dr Kelly indulged in a further masochistic act in an attempt to take his life.

A further objection is that police evidence states there was a halflitre bottle of Evian water by the body which had not been fully drunk.

Common sense tells us that quite a lot of water would be required to swallow 29 large tablets. It is frankly unlikely, with only a small bottle of water to hand, that any would have been left undrunk.

Stranger still, tests revealed the presence of only the equivalent of a fifth of one pill in Dr Kelly's stomach.

Even allowing for natural metabolising, this cannot easily be reconciled with the idea that he swallowed 29 of them.

Forensic toxicologist Alexander Allan told the Hutton inquiry that although the levels of co-proxamol in Dr Kelly's blood were higher than therapeutic levels, they were less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose.

Furthermore, it is generally accepted that concentrations of a drug in the blood can increase by as much as tenfold after death, leaving open the possibility that he consumed only a thirtieth of the dose necessary to kill him.

As for Dr Kelly's state of mind, in the eyes of those who knew him well he was the last person who might be expected to take his own life.

A recent convert to the Baha'i faith which expressly forbids suicide, he was a strong character who had survived many difficult situations in the past.

Just a day before his 20th birthday in May 1964, his own mother had killed herself with an overdose. Though this had naturally affected him deeply at the time, there was nothing to suggest that it was on his mind at this point in his life.

His friend Mai Pederson recalled a conversation they once had about his mother's death. Would he ever contemplate suicide himself, she asked. 'Good God no, I couldn't ever imagine doing that," he is said to have replied. "I would never do it."

Later many people would conclude that the seeds of his suicide lay in his uncomfortable appearance before MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, July 15, just three days before his death.

Grilled for more than an hour during this televised hearing, he was clearly under considerable pressure and yet one journalist recalled him smiling afterwards.

By the time he gave evidence before the Intelligence and Security Committee the following day, he was even managing to crack a joke or two.

His emotional state certainly did not appear to give any major cause for alarm on the morning of the Thursday he disappeared.

His wife Janice later described him as "tired, subdued but not depressed" and the e-mails he sent from his home during those hours suggested that his mood, if anything, was upbeat.

"Many thanks for your thoughts," he wrote to one colleague. "It has been difficult. Hopefully will all blow over by the end of the week and I can travel to Baghdad and get on with the real work."

Indeed, so keen was Dr Kelly to get back to Iraq that he spoke to Wing Commander John Clark at the Ministry of Defence about when he could return.

A trip was booked for him the following Friday and his diary, recovered by the police, shows that the trip had been entered for that day. People about to kill themselves do not generally first book an airline ticket for a flight they have no intention of taking.

Since none of this fits the profile of a man about to commit suicide, we are faced with an obvious question. If Dr Kelly did not kill himself, then who might have been responsible for his death?

There are, it must be admitted, a number of possible suspects. In the course of a long career in the shadowy world of arms control, Dr Kelly had made powerful enemies.

Back in 1991, for example, he was part of a team that exposed Russia's tests of biological weapons for offensive purposes - a field in which they had invested huge sums of money. This could easily have sparked a desire for revenge, if not from the state itself then from individual Russians.

Dr Kelly also had intimate knowledge of biological weapons research in apartheid-era South Africa that some might have preferred not to see the light of day.

It has also been suggested that he had dealings with Mossad, the Israeli secret service, about illegal bacterial weapon activity.

But it seems very unlikely that the anger of old foes would have simmered for years and then exploded just as Dr Kelly emerged in the political spotlight in 2003.

Quite simply, it would qualify as an astonishing coincidence if the cause of his death were not rooted in the furore over Iraq.

At this point, it has to be asked whether there were elements in the British intelligence services, or indeed within 10 Downing Street itself, who would have wanted Dr Kelly dead.

This is a possibility I have seriously considered. But it is difficult, frankly, to think that anyone in the Government could have thought DrKelly's death to be in their interest, even were they morally prepared to bring it about.

After all, the death of Dr Kelly presented Tony Blair with his greatest political challenge, and put the political focus firmly onto the whole Iraq debacle, which cannot be where the Government would have wanted it.

The more I investigated this affair, the more I realised that people who had worked with David Kelly suspected some kind of link with the Iraqis themselves.

Diplomat David Broucher told the Hutton inquiry that he interpreted Dr Kelly's remark about being found "dead in the woods" to mean that "he was at risk of being attacked by the Iraqis in some way".

Dr Kelly's friend Mai Pederson confirmed to the police that the scientist had received death threats from supporters of Saddam Hussein, who regarded him as an enemy on account of his past success at uncovering their weapons programmes.

This was something Dr Kelly privately acknowledged but refused to be cowed by, in a very British, stiff upper lip kind of way.

The theory that he may have been murdered by elements loyal to Saddam is supported by Dick Spertzel, America's most senior biological weapons inspector, who worked closely with Dr Kelly in Iraq.

"A number of us were on an Iraqi hit list," he told me matter-of-factly. "I was number three, and David was a couple behind that."

But Saddam loyalists are not the only Iraqis we need to consider. There are others, too, with rather closer links to the West.

Much of the information about Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, on which Britain and America based their case for war, was provided by Iraqi dissidents eager to see his overthrow.

This information was sensational and, as events turned out, wildly distorted and in most regards plain false.

One of the central figures here was Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the so-called Iraqi National Congress and the CIA's favourite Iraqi opposition politician.

A financier with a decidedly chequered past - he was found guilty of embezzlement and forgery after $158 million disappeared from a bank he founded in Jordan - Chalabi made no secret of his wish to drag the United States into war with Saddam and was apparently prepared to say anything to achieve that end.

A key Iraqi informer codenamed "Curveball" - who claimed to have led a team equipping mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons for Saddam, but was later entirely discredited - is believed to have been the brother of one of Chalabi's aides.

Chalabi's fingerprints can also be found on the now notorious claims by another defector that Saddam had 20 or more secret sites where weapons of mass destruction could be found. Subsequent searches showed this allegation to be utterly without foundation.

Naturally, those like Dr Kelly who, by sticking to the facts, weakened the case for invasion beforehand and discredited those who had exaggerated it afterwards, were unhelpful to Chalabi and his colleagues. The last thing they wanted was the sober truth to prevail.

Another important figure here is Iyad Allawi, leader of the Iraqi National Accord, another organisation created to oppose Saddam. Before they parted ways, he was Saddam's supporter and friend.

There are many who tell of Allawi's violent history. As a young man, he is alleged to have been present at the torture of Iraqi communists who were hung from the ceiling and beaten.

While living in London in the Seventies, he was allegedly the head of Iraq's intelligence operation in Europe, informing on opponents of Saddam who will have faced torture and death when they returned home.

Allawi went on to develop a fruitful relationship with MI6 and the CIA. After the Iraq invasion, he was appointed Prime Minister in the country's interim government - only to face allegations (which he strongly denied) that he had personally shot seven insurgents in the head with a pistol at Baghdad's Al-Amariyah security centre.

"This is how we must deal with terrorists," Allawi is alleged to have told a stunned audience of close to 30 onlookers. "We must destroy anyone who wants to destroy the Iraqi people."

The new Prime Minister's actions are said to have prompted one U.S. official to comment: "What a mess we're in - we got rid of one son of a bitch only to get another."

The Americans apparently referred to Allawi as "Saddam lite".

Before the Iraq invasion, Allawi's organisation - just like Ahmed Chalabi's - was responsible for eye- catching but groundless intelligence exploited by supporters of war. #

In the case of Allawi's group, it was reports passed to MI6 in the spring and summer of 2002, including the false claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which he could deploy at 45 minutes' notice.

This now infamous "45-minute claim" fed through to the dossier of intelligence which was used as the justification for our involvement in the invasion of Iraq.

It was this dossier, and the 45-minute claim in particular, that David Kelly challenged in his crucial interview with the BBC.

Tuesday, 16 October 2007

Another nail in the coffin for the official "suicide" theory. Dr David Kelly, a British Ministry of Defence employee, expert in biological and chemical warfare and a former UN weapons instructor in Iraq, was murdered because he knew Iraq had no "WMDs".

Fresh doubts were raised over the suicide of Dr David Kelly after it emerged that no fingerprints were found on the knife he supposedly used to kill himself.

The Hutton Inquiry into the death of the Ministry of Defence weapons expert ruled that he slashed one of his wrists with a blunt garden knife and took an overdose of pills.

But the campaigning Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has carried out his own investigation after forensic experts questioned the official version of events.

David Kelly: Fresh doubts over his deathHe has called for the case to be re-opened after Thames Valley Police revealed that no fingerprints were found on the knife.

The Lewes MP made the discovery after submitting a Freedom of Information request to the force.

The lack of fingerprints is especially strange as police records also revealed the germ warfare expert was not wearing any gloves when he died – nor were any found at the scene of his death.

Mr Baker said: 'It is one of the things that makes me think Dr Kelly was murdered.

Other reasons for doubting the official story, such as the improbability of someone dying from a transection of the ulnar artery, or by the ingestion of less than one-third of a fatal overdose of Co-Proxamol, were noted long ago by medical professionals.

Paramedics who were among the first on the scene, at Harrowdown Hill woods, attended a press conference and pointed out that there was so little blood at the scene that it was not consistent with a death from a severed artery. With more than fifteen years' experience of attending attempted suicides, they would have expected to see much more blood. In one case, blood had spurted high enough to hit the ceiling but the guy had survived.

'The angle you pick up a knife to kill yourself – there would be fingerprints. Someone who wanted to kill himself wouldn't go to the lengths of wiping the knife clean of fingerprints.

'And wearing gloves would seem very odd when you are about to cut your own wrists. It is very strange.'

Mr Baker is also suspicious about the cut to Dr Kelly's wrist.

It completely severed a tiny blood vessel called the ulnar artery, which is deep in the wrist and protected by nerves and tendons.

It is highly unlikely anyone without a blood-clotting defect would bleed to death from a single cut to this artery.

It would have required unusual force to cut through the tendons, particularly with a blunt gardening knife, and it would have been very painful.

To ascertain just how unusual the injury was, Mr Baker asked the Office of National Statistics how many people in the UK died in 2003 from a cut to the ulnar artery.

He was told that Dr Kelly was the only one. The scientist was found dead in woodland near his home in Southmoor, Oxfordshire, in July 2003 after becoming trapped at the centre of a vicious war of words between the Government and the BBC.

Blunt: A gardening knife similar to the one found by the body

His death came days after he was unmasked as the source of a Today programme report alleging Labour had 'sexed up' a dossier outlining the case for war in Iraq.

The document had famously claimed that Saddam Hussein could launch a nuclear or biological weapons strike on Britain within 45 minutes.

Dr Kelly, a father of three, was grilled on TV by MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

His widow, Janice, claimed her husband had been put under 'intolerable pressure'.

But Lord Hutton exonerated the Government and ruled that Dr Kelly's death was a suicide – leading to accusations that the inquiry had been a whitewash.

Independent doctors have pointed to discrepancies in the post-mortem examination results.

They say neither the cut to Dr Kelly's wrist nor the drugs he took were enough to kill him.

Friends and relatives said the doctor had shown no suicidal tendencies, and had been looking forward to his daughter's wedding.

However, Mrs Kelly remains convinced that her husband killed himself and refused to comment on the latest development.

A Thames Valley Police spokesman said: 'It has been confirmed that there were no fingerprints on the knife whatsoever. This however does not change the official explanation of his death.'

The killers would have injected a lethal mix - probably of co-proxamol and succinylcholine - into his wrist, with the incision to the ulna artery doubly serving to conceal the puncture wound and promote the "suicide" myth for the uninformed. The attempt to force a large number of Co-Proxamol tablets down into his stomach was badly bodged, with Kelly dying too quickly for the assassins. Lord Hutton, a government yes-man, carried out an 'inquiry' with a predetermined conclusion: the government were right, and the BBC were wrong to have attempted to cast any doubt on Blair's case for war with Iraq. In fact, the hapless Dr Kelly, who had debunked the government's claims that Iraqi hydrogen artillery balloon inflators were "mobile bio-weapons labs", was murdered so that the Blair regime could maintain the fiction that they did not lie to take Britain into an illegal war. With David Kelly not around to contradict the official version of events, the government could blame the intelligence rather than its handling of it.

I spoke about the administration’s rage at the activities of Russian president Putin recently and here is more on the subject.

There was a discussion of Putin’s assumption of national control over the huge Russian natural resources, to include natural gas and oil.

It is obvious to most of us here that Bush, who is quite stupid, thoroughly misunderstood Putin and his methodology. Bush likes subservient people around him, like the former British PM, Tony Blair, and he cannot stand, will not tolerate and tries to punish anyone who dares to disagree with his narrow and parochial views.

Putin, once head of Russian intelligence, is a very clever and competent person. Unlike Bush who boasts, lies and blusters, Putin bides his time and then moves, very quietly but very effectively.

The basic problem here is that our man, Boris Yeltsin, was cooperating in converting Soviet Russia’s state-owned holdings to the private sector. A group of street merchants, called the Oligarchy, easily got control of most of the important Russian businesses and then tried to market some of these to western interests, for large amounts of money.

When Yeltsin was forced to resign, Putin was put in charge of Russian policy and he carefully began to dismantle the Oligarchy, bit by bit. American oil interests, who had poured billions of dollars into new equipment for what they assumed would soon be American-controlled oil fields, were horrified and enraged when Putin kicked out the Oligarchs and took over their holdings.

Karl Marx once attributed wars to economic rather than political reasons and in the present instance, Marx was right on. The United States is one of the largest users of oil on the planet.

Once a major producer, this country has now become the largest importer of both oil and natural gas. For a long time, the U.S. depended on Persian Gulf oil but that has either been disrupted by invasion and sabotage as in Iraq or by a growingly obvious depletion of the once-huge Saudi fields.

The output of the North Sea fields is mostly destined for the European market and Bush and the CIA have so angered Venezuela’s Chavez that oil from that source could dry up at any moment. Mexico’s Pemex production is also shrinking and terrorist attacks on their pipelines has put this source into jeprody.

The Bush people misread Putin and actually believed that he would voluntarily step down from the Presidency of Russia in 2008. They have already selected several people for high office in a new, U.S.-friendly régime. Our CIA had cultivated, and paid, the drunken Yeltsin and with the dangerous Putin gone, they hoped to do to Russia what they had done to the Ukraine.; get control of its government and make it an American asset.

Putin has many enemies, mostly among the Oligarchs whom he has stripped of their holdings and run out of the country. Naturally, these men, most of whom are Jewish, fled to Israel with as much money as they could carry, and from there, they plot to regain their power.

Chief of these is Boris Berezovsky--Putin has his enemy abroad in Boris Berezovsky, a key wheeler and dealer of the Yeltsin epoch. Berezovsky did not spare his political and financial resources to make Putin President. Once firmly installed, though, Putin made it clear that Berezovsky's resources were welcome, while Berezovsky himself was not. All the ills and failures of the post-Soviet society are now ascribed to Berezovsky and his fellow oligarchs, like Vladimir Gusinski, whose Media-Most holding company was destroyed by the Kremlin, and who settled in Spain, once Moscow's attempts to have him extradited failed. Berezovsky's associates are either in prison-like Nikolai Glushkov, once Deputy General Manager of Aeroflot _ or on the wanted list, like Badri Patarkatsishvili, Berezovsky's right hand man. The embittered population, fleeced during the reform decade, is receptive to the propaganda line of rallying around Putin against the miscreant who has sold out their country.

Friday, 5 October 2007

Not written by me but I agree with it. Anyone who can call Desmond Tutu an anti-semite is clearly living in an alternate universe. The man has more moral authority in his little toe than most of us have in our whole bodies! Why not call Nelson Mandela an anti-semite, or Ghandi maybe? How about Martin Luther King Jr.?

The utterly charming thing about the Zionist Thought Police is their apparent inability to restrain themselves, even from the very excesses that will prove to be their own undoing. Having asked sane and rational people to believe that Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier simply for pointing out the obvious about the apartheid regime Israel maintains in the occupied territories, the same crew now want us to believe that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite. No jokes! That was the reason cited for Tutu being banned from speaking at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis. "We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy," explained university official Doug Hennes.

The "anti-Semitic" views Tutu had expressed were in his April 2002 speech "Occupation is Oppression" in which he likened the occupation regime in the West Bank, based on his personal experience of it, to what he had experienced as a black person in South Africa. He recalled the role of Jews in South Africa in the struggle to end apartheid, and expressed his solidarity with us through our centuries of suffering. But then turning to the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians, he issued an important challenge, one that might just as well have been uttered by a Jewish biblical prophet:

"My heart aches. I say, why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

"Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.

"The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

"Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or – and I hope this will be the road taken – to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

"We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. South Africa is a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land."

Tutu is absolutely right, of course, nor would those Israelis who embody the same tradition of indivisible human rights that Tutu personifies disagree with him.

Frankly, this case I think this case underlines precisely how absurd the policing of discussion about Israel in the U.S. has become. As a South African veteran of the liberation struggle, I can testify that there are few, if any, more decent, humane, courageous and morally unimpeachable individuals in the world than Bishop Tutu. Speaking truth to power is what he’s always done, both to the old regime in South Africa as much as to the new, when the latter has failed to live up to the standards it professes on AIDS, crime and other issues.He has spoken forcefully on human rights struggles around the world, and his statements about the West Bank are based on what he has seen there. The diminutive Bish is a moral giant of our times, and the fact that he is condemning Israel for maintaining an apartheid system on the West Bank should serve as a wake-up call to liberal Americans who prefer not to think about these things. Yes, of course Bishop Tutu makes people uncomfortable; that’s what he’s always done, like a good cleric, challenging his flock to consider their own actions and omissions against the morality they profess to embrace. Instead, thanks to the atmosphere created by the right-wing nationalists of AIPAC and the ADL etc., many mainstream institutions would now prefer to shoot the messenger, if only to avoid incurring the wrath of those who have stripped the very term "anti-Semitic" of its meaning (by using it as a bludgeon in defense of behavior utterly abhorrent in the Jewish tradition as much as anything else), and as such, commit a great crime against Jews and Judaism.

In case anyone doubted that this country is still free. They say it is, but is it? Really?

Two disabled men from Bournemouth, England were seized from a pub at gunpoint by police under the terrorism act, taken to the local police station and questioned for 45 minutes after one of them opened his mail and the other looked at a police officer.

The Bournemouth Daily Echo reports that Bob Hamlen, 47, and Michael Burbidge, 31 were dumbfounded when approached by officers in a beer garden overlooking the security checkpoint at the entrance to the Highcliff Marriott Hotel where top British politicians are currently staying for the annual Labour Party conference.

Mr Hamlen told reporters:

"We were treated like terrorist suspects.... It was so over the top, there were about eight officers around us asking questions which was very frightening.

"We told them we lived round the corner and this was our local pub. But, while an armed officer pointed his gun at us from the other side of the street, they made us empty our pockets and put all our possessions on the table. Then they checked all our credit cards and documents."I was carrying my disabled bus pass but it didn't make any difference. I needed to go to the toilet and an officer went with me in case I escaped. After radioing through the information, they asked us to accompany them, in separate police cars, to the police station."

Mr Hamlen also made it clear that he has arthritis and brittle bone disease and has been registered disabled for five years, while Mr Burbidge has been paralysed all his life and relies on a wheelchair and crutches to get around.

The two men hardly fit the description of hardcore Al Qaeda terror suspects, but then that does not matter because everyone is now a suspect under the 2000 terrorism act.

Mr Hamlen continued:

"They said the reason I was being taken to the police station was because I had been seen passing a white envelope."But all I did was take my post out of my jacket pocket and open an electricity bill.

"On Michael's stop and search form they said they wanted to speak to him, under the Terrorism Act, because he had been looking at a police officer."That area of town is saturated with police officers and, from where we were sitting, it would have been impossible not to be watching one."

The men were then taken to the police station and questioned for 45 minutes. After this the police asked the two men to take them to their flat so they could search it. When the search turned up nothing out of the ordinary police decided the two men posed no threat and returned them to the pub.

Mr Hamlen and Mr Burbidge, who have lived in the area for many years, say they feel violated and are demanding an official apology.

Though the two were not arrested or charged they were issued with stop and search records which will be placed on the UK stop and search database and kept there indefinitely, as per standard procedure.

Under section 44 of the terrorism act of 2000, police were granted the power to stop and search anyone without the need to show that they have "reasonable suspicion" an offence is being committed, providing the stop takes place in an area designated as a potential terrorist target.

Currently, however, the whole of London is covered by the powers, meaning the stops can happen anywhere in the city.

Thursday, 4 October 2007

By Jonathan Tasini - Playboy magazine. It's very unusual to see mainstream publications run articles like this. Let's hope more start doing it.

Why can’t American Jews, particularly liberal Jews, think straight about Israel? American Jews can easily condemn the war in and occupation of Iraq, as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the violations of civil rights there. Yet the same passion for peace, justice and human rights is muted when it comes to talking about unpleasant activities in the Israeli government. American Jews and many politicians who pander for Jewish votes are hurting Israel and the cause of peace by refusing to have an honest debate about our country’s historically one-sided position vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East conflict. An honest debate is underway within Israel itself, but in the US it’s impossible to be critical of Israel without being labeled anti-Semitic or worse.

Before I dive further into this, I should establish my bona fides for making this argument, which itself says alot about the terrain. I am a Jew. My father was born in what was then Palestine and fought in Israel’s war of independence. My father’s cousin was killed in that war. I lived in Israel for seven years, including the period of the 1973 Yom Kippur war. A cousin of mine was killed in that war, leaving behind a widow and two children. My step-grandfather, an ikd nab wgi was no threat to anyone was killed by a Palestinian who took an axe to his head while he was sitting quietly on a park bench. His murder was revenge for the massacre of dozens of peaceful Muslims the day before, slaughtered by an ultra-nationalist Israeli soldier as they knelt in prayer.

I care about Israel as I care about our country, but I wish to speak the truth about it. In 2006, when I ran in the New York Democratic primary for Senator because of incumbent Hillary Clinton’s support for the Iraq war, my campaign coincided with Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, a move triggered by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. While campaigning I said that Israel had committed acts that violated the Geneva Conventions and international standards. Within an hour reporters from all four New York daily papers called me, alerted to my comments by my opponent’s operatives. Betraying their bias, the reporters had no idea my position would not be considered novel or radical in Israel where the country’s conduct in the war was a topic of hot debate. Indeed, the reporters need only have consulted Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem.

Referring to last summer’s Lebanon bombing, B Tselem’s website states, “International humanitarian law…requires that the combating sides direct their attacks only against specific military objectives, take cautionary measures to prevent injury to civilians and refrain from disproportionate attacks, ie., attacks directed against legitimate targets but that are likely to cause excessive harm to civilians. Over the past week Israel has killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians in its attacks against targets in Lebanon. There is a concern that at least some of them were disproportionate attacks, which constitute war crimes”.

Here are some other inconvenient truths. Israel is holding 10,000 Palestinians in administrative detention where, according to B’Tselem, they are exposed to “moderate pressure”, a euphuism for torture. And while six Israeli soldiers and 17 civilians died last year, the Israeli military killed 660 Palestinians, roughly half of them innocent bystanders. So why is there such a lack of debate in the US?

Jews and non-Jews who can easily tell foreigners that being American is not the same as supporting the American government are incapable of making the same argument in Israel’s case. Elected officials won’t say anything because of the political cost or at least the perceived threat from Jewish voters. And there is residue from the Cold War, when Israel was seen as the region’s bulwark against the Soviet Union. Among Jews there is a reflexive “Israel right or wrong” attitude that is deeply rooted in the memory of the Holocaust. My own family lost people in the Holocaust. But the Holocaust should not be used as a moral shield to suppress honest criticism of Israel.

It’s also important to acknowledge that some critics of Israel undercut their own positions by painting a caricature of the country. Israel is a democracy, and like all democracies it has its flaws Nut the open debate heard in Israel is rarely heard in the regions’s other countries, most of which are ruled by dictators or generals. Israel has a very free rambunctious press” can the same be said about Egypt or Syria? Israel’s attorney general recently went after the country’s president for sexual harassment. We can’t even get Congress, not to mention the attorney general, to investigate the president for lying about a war.

These facts make Israel’s conduct even more troubling. The country’s democratic principles and societal fabric are being undermined by its role as an occupier. People who refuse to criticize Israel because of friendship are no friends to Israel. A true friend would not have stood by and remained silent as Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs in Lebanon, leaving a million unexploded bomblets-small devices the size of a light socket that are still killing and injuring civilians-littered throughout the southern part of the country. A true friend would have taken Israel’s leaders to the woodshed and said, “Responding to Hezbollah is one thing, but turning Lebanon into rubble and embittering a new generation toward the existence of your country is madness”. Instead, politicians like Joe Lieberman and Clinton actually encouraged the bombing by uttering vigorous endorsements of Israel’s right to defend itself. A friend of Israel would not try to fan fears y tarring as anti-Semitic people who are critical of U.S. Middle East policy. Criticism of Israel may be painful to American Jews, but it is high time anyone, Jew or non-Jew, were able to raise questions about our one-sided policy without fear of a McCarthy like smear. A friend would argue strenuously that Israel’s moral fiber and security are weakened every moment it allows the so-called separation barrier in the West Bank to stand, in violation of international law. Whether Jews like the comparison or not, Jimmy Carter is correct in his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid when he describes the control over Palestinian’s movements as similar to South Africa’s apartheid system.

As a Jew, I have always been proud of the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, which means roughly,”repairing the world.” I like to think it is hat brought so many Jews into the civil rights and labor movements in the 60’s and 70’s and in to the current antiwar movement. I feel great sorrow that Israel is an occupier of another people, and I believe Israel can never be whole or at peace until that occupation is ended in a just way. I also believe tikkun olam means we must never be silent.

Wednesday, 3 October 2007

These days, the internet is host to an enormous flood of rumors tarted up as fact concerning the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC buildings. We know here that much of this is government-sponsored disinformation grafted onto the ubiquitous idiot fringes of our society that see sinister plots in potholes and hurricanes but there are two aspects of this attack that simply are not part and parcel of the myths. The most important one is one of pre-information on the part of our senior officials and the second is the immense amount of money that was made, using prior knowledge of this attack, by Israeli businessmen and, regrettably, by members of our intelligence and government communities. It is known inside the Beltway that the Bush people know, almost to the day, about the attack. They did nothing about this, heightened no security, issued no alerts, because it suited their Mideast expansionist policy to permit it to continue and give Bush popular support for his long-planned plot to lay his hands on Iraqi oil. After all, the Bush family made their money in oil and they are all connected with other oil industry people. Cheney ran Halliburton that was a support industry for the oil people and men like Cheney always keep their eyes open for a chance to make money. The best example of making gold out of blood are the stock market manipulations that took place just before the attack. This is a subject which briefly surfaced in the media and then was ruthlessly shut down on orders from the White House. In spreading disinformation for the purpose of self-protection, it is not a good idea to let the public know certain matters that might result in unpleasant conclusions.Full story...

Comment from wrh.com: Truth needs no law to support it. Throughout history, from Galileo to Bruno to Zundel, only lies and liars have resorted to the courts to enforce adherence to dogma.

If something is true, it need not ever fear re-examination. The sun rises in the east. People are free to re-examine that truth for themselves every morning, and the truth will reaffirm itself again and again.

We do not see legions of panicked "sunists" passing laws and threatening jail and torture to those who ask for proof that the sun rises in the east.

We do not see people who insist Elvis is still alive rounded up. We do not see people who claim to have seen Bigfoot thrown in jail. We do not see people who claim to have taken rides on board flying saucers target for career wrecking.

History is filled with genocides and in every single case, save one, the victims cry for more examination of the crimes committed against them. Only in the case of the Holocaust do the purported victims work so hard to prevent any and all examination of the facts.

The actions of the German authorities are those of someone terrified of re-examination, of those with something to hide.

Germany's top appeals court upheld the conviction of Ernst Zündel for denying the Holocaust and inciting hatred of Jews. Mr. Zündel's appeal was baseless, the Karlsruhe-based Federal Court of Justice said in a statement yesterday.

A trial court convicted Mr. Zündel, 68, for incitement, defamation, and slander February 15, and sentenced him to five years in prison, the maximum allowed under German law.

Officials are seeking to prosecute people who post denials of the Holocaust on Internet sites available in Germany. It is a crime in Germany to deny the killing of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.

Jürgen Rieger, Mr. Zündel's attorney, called yesterday's decision a "scandal" because it didn't remedy what he called flaws during the trial. He said he will ask the German Constitutional Court to overturn the decision. Mr. Zündel published the "Germania Newsletter," and sent anti-Semitic publications from Canada to people in Germany, the court said. He also ran a Web site with his wife, the court said. Mr. Zündel left the country as a 19-year-old and lived in Canada, from where he was extradited to stand trial in Germany.

I really should stop worrying about pissing these people off and stop censoring myself. I keep forgetting that these Zionist wankers are helping my google ranking. Here we go again...

I recently became aware of a Jewish Internet agent provocateur going by the moniker "bacon-eating atheist Jew." It seems he didn't like a particular article I wrote a week ago entitled "Let's Talk about Jews and Elections."[1] I wonder why? Why would a professed 'atheist' care whether or not I wrote about Jews, isn't Judaism a religion and not a race or ethnicity? Isn't that what we've all been led to believe? Besides, what does he have against dialogue? Why is it that the 'bacon-eating atheist Jew' doesn't want us to "talk" about Jews and elections?

In any case, I'd like to tear apart his argument and expose him for the fool and black propagandist he truly is. Here goes.

In my article, Let's Talk About Jews And Elections, I exposed the fact that Nicolas Sarkozy, France's new President, is a Jew. The bacon-eating atheist Jew suggests he's a Catholic. You decide [See photo above - note yarmulke].

In his critique of my article[2] the bacon-eating atheist Jew suggests that Sarkozy isn't Jewish that he's a practicing Catholic:

"His grandfather, a Sephardi Jew by birth, was a convert to Catholicism, and Sarkozy was, accordingly, raised in the Catholic faith of his household. Nicolas Sarkozy, like his brothers, is a baptised and professing Catholic."

This is a bald-faced LIE and the bacon-eating atheist Jew is a liar. He knows very well that Sarkozy is Jewish, he was born of a Jewish womb, Sarkozy's mother is a Jew, therefore by Jewish LAW, so is Sarkozy. PERIOD. He could be a practicing Buddhist and it wouldn't matter, his mother is a Jew, therefore he is, too. In effect, what we have is a poor Internet propagandist, the BEAJ on one side insisting Sarkozy is a Catholic...and on the other side, we have some prestigious Jewish publications acknowledging the fact that Nicolas Sarkozy is as Jewish as matzo balls.

The Australian Jewish news[3] reports the following:

"it is well known that Sarkozy's mother was born to the Mallah family, one of the oldest Jewish families of Salonika, Greece."

The AJN additionally quotes Sarkozy himself stating the following which clearly illustrates that the new French President recognizes his Jewishness:

"In an interview Nicolas Sarkozy gave in 2004, he expressed an extraordinary understanding of the plight of the Jewish people for a home: "Should I remind you the visceral attachment of every Jew to Israel, as a second mother homeland? There is nothing outrageous about it. Every Jew carries within him a fear passed down through generations, and he knows that if one day he will not feel safe in his country, there will always be a place that would welcome him. And this is Israel."

The AJN isn't the only publication to confirm that Sarkozy is a Jew. The UK's Guardian confirms it,[4] as does the Israeli National News,[5] the Jewish Telegraph Agency,[6] the Jewish Journal,[7] and the European Jewish News, here[8] and here.[9]

The Guardian even published an article entitled "The tough, new president still loves his mum, France's real first lady,"[10] now if that doesn't convince even the greatest skeptic that Nicolas is a "good Jewish boy," I don't know what will.

In short, the bacon-eating atheist Jew is a liar, he knows very well that Nicolas Sarkozy is a Jew and the only reason he posted a critique of my article was on the off chance that a few ignorant Gentiles might read it.[11]

The BEAJ hates white people. It's obvious, all one need do is read the man's words. In his Judeophobe[12] critique of my article he refers to whites as "whitey," and states the following:

"Any hoot, I'm sure you are now dumbfounded because by your own logic, you figured out that Joooos are the majority if include [sic] people like Sarkozy and Kerry. That is why you guys aren't in control, you dumb ass WHITEYS are the minority."

Of course, the BEAJ wants his Gentile readers to believe that when he uses the word "whitey," he is only referring to 'racist' whites, but we really have no reason to believe him. He is after all a proven liar [see above].

Of the greatest interest, at least to me, is the BEAJ's comments concerning the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He reiterates the boringly predictable denunciation of the Protocols, you know the one, they're fake, a fraud, a forgery, etc. Of course, he doesn't provide a link to them as I did in my article and am once again doing now [See the actual text of the Protocols of Zion here].[13] The Protocols were allegedly proven a fraud after a trial in Berne, Switzerland back in 1934. I'd remind Gentile readers that a well- publicized trial also found O.J. Simpson innocent of murder, despite the fact that he was obviously guilty. I'd remind readers that most recently a Jewish judge, Jewish prosecutor and Jewish Medical Examiner also allegedly found no evidence that Anna Nicole Smith's Jewish husband, Howard Stern, murdered her and her son, despite the fact that even the dullest Fox News viewer isn't very convinced of Stern's alleged innocence. In reality, trials mean very little, especially when a Jewish media is reporting on them, as they did after the 1934 Berne Protocols case. This hasn't changed much over the last 73 years, i.e. Iraq and WMD.

As far as the BEAJ's assertion that the Protocols are fake, but his unwillingness to provide a link to them, consider these words written more than 50 years ago:

"The claim of the Jews that the Protocols are forgeries is in itself an admission of their genuineness, for they [Jews] NEVER ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE FACTS corresponding to the THREATS which the Protocols contain, and, indeed, the correspondence between prophecy and fulfillment is too glaring to be set aside or obscured. This, the Jews well know and therefore evade."[14]

BEAJ apparently accepts the fact that Jews are disproportionately represented in the fields I mentioned in my article as he utilizes the same by now predictable and dogmatic response:

"The bottom line is that Joooos are generally better-educated and usually wind up with white collar jobs. Joooos don't prevent WHITEY from doing the same thing. The West is about capitalism, and whatever Jooooish entertainers, Jooooish politicians?, and media moguls do must be liked by the overwhelming majority of the population, or they'd be out of business."

Of course, I disagree with him. In fact, when I wrote the article, I accurately predicted some critic would emerge with the BEAJ's argument, that's why I included the following in my article:

"All of us have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Jews are indeed special and highly ambitious and this is supposed to explain their large showings in politics, academia, the sciences, the media, etc. I personally think it far more likely that a Jewish stranglehold on OUR media better explains these discrepancies, I am not particularly impressed by their alleged abilities, after all, look around you; is the world really a better place with Jews at the helm?"

In short, the BEAJ does nothing but reinforce my argument that many Jews, not necessarily Zionists alone, are part and parcel of a growing problem in the west. Most of them tend to collaborate with criminal and Talmudic Jews, which makes them complicit. As I have said over and over, it is *organized* Jewry, which include propagandists like the BEAJ that seek to silence criticism by way of hate crime/hate speech legislation. I can't tell you how often I am lambasted by Jews for writing about this, but nonetheless it's a fact. I wrote about this in "Let's Talk about Jews and Elections" when I penned the following:

"In the beginning of this article, I noted the fact that France now has a Jewish President. I did this solely to point out in the end, that this phenomenon is not isolated to America, it has plagued Europe for decades and is the real reason Europe has passed draconian "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation which has resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of European patriots. Jewish politicians are the primary force behind the passage of these laws, just as they are in the United States. These Jews hide behind the cloak of other minorities by using them as if they were the crux of concern, but in fact, these laws are designed for no other reason than to prevent exposure and criticism of ethnic Jews and their Supremacist policies/agenda."[15]

The fact of the matter is, JEWS are behind pushing "hate crime" legislation through Congress and they will pull out all stops in their effort to rearrange the Constitution to fit their needs.

The largest Jewish publication in the world, The Forward, reinforces this fact with this recent article entitled "Jewish Groups Set To Fight Veto of Hate-Crimes Bill."[16] In it, the attentive reader will find the following:

"Jewish organizations are playing a leading role in the coalition pushing the bill, with almost all of them - except the Orthodox ones - taking action to promote the passage of the measure. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007 passed the House floor last week, in a 237-180 vote. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to begin debating the bill within two weeks."[17]

So there you have it - not from an alleged anti-Semite, but from the world's largest Jewish publication, The Forward.

Lastly, lest you still sympathize with these people and in order to reinforce what kind of person the bacon-eating atheist Jew really is, consider what he and his compatriots wrote to and about a 14- year old girl, Stefania Glenn, the daughter of Mark Glenn:

"You're the ugly one, you sicialian wop whore. You're people are related to Arabs. Hell, you married an Arab. What is Marc Glenns REAL last name. You're a Papist whore. Go back to North Africa and take your swarthy southern italian mafia with you'[18]

Or this one from the atheist Jew himself:[19]

"'You really are a stupid freak. You are a common retard. You have no argument. Nothing but an imbecile. You have an inferior complex, maybe because you are an Arab, I don't know. Fuck off and die. You have kids. Hopefully they didn't inherit your self loathing and inferiority and low IQ. If they did they did and think like you, they should have been aborted. You are a sad sad twerp'

Tuesday, 2 October 2007

With rumors of war making the usual rounds in official Washington (mostly planted leaks) it is true that a lunatic Bush, pushed by Cheney, the Neocons and the Israeli Embassy, really wants to attack Iran. He has no troops and the senior officers are coming very close to open revolt, as are the troops in Iraq. But all of this to one side, I am planning to comment on something that most of us know as do the victims but which is not talked about in the media. To be blunt, the arch conservative Republicans detest black Americans, consider them inferior, welfare queens and would love for them to be exported to Africa, in theory if not in practice. The deliberate abandonment of the poor black population of New Orleans is typical of these proto-fascists but right now, there is sick horror in the far right circles that the dread Obama might actually become president! They could put up with Hillary but never Obama! “My God,” Bush said in a meeting three days ago, “that would be the end of this country if a Goddam nigger ever got into the White House!” Isn’t that a wonderful thing to hear about? And this is nothing new but it is coming more and more out into the open. I have a strong feeling that unless the Democrats wise up and do what they were elected to do, namely stop the war, there will be some amazing happenings come the next election. And one Senator said to me that it’s too bad a tidal wave doesn’t hit the marina here and drown the lavatory-loving Craig. Believe me, the GOP stalwarts hate the sight of him. He will probably lose his bid to withdraw his plea but he has made it very clear he will never quit. Maybe someone will cut his boat adrift while he’s sleeping on it and it will drift out into the Atlantic and be run down by a passing submarine.

Monday, 1 October 2007

Enlightenment

Do you feel like you're living in some Orwellian nightmare? Or perhaps you feel as if you're plugged into The Matrix? Well if so, you've come to the right place. No matter how messed up you thought the world was, by the time you've finished reading some of the things I've found on my travels in Cyberspace you'll realise that 1984 was just a typo!

A note to the non-ravers out there: codshit is
NOT a derogatory or insulting term and bears no relation in offensiveness to its four-letter cousin, it's a word used to describe the nonsense that people sometimes talk when they are off their heads. To understand what codshit is watch the film Human Traffic.

Comments are welcome, but before you waste perfectly useful energy abusing me please take a moment to reflect on the basic right we all have to express ourselves!

Please remember that I am not telling you what to think or believe, take everything you read here with a large grain of salt!

Wisdom

If you confront the Universe with good intentions in your heart it will reflect that and reward your intent... usually... It just doesn't always do it in the way you expect.
.: G'kar :.

So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you.
.: Bill Hicks :.

Let there be no doubt that the people of the free world are engaged in a war... In the next few years, we are either going to see the people of the free world rise up against these fascists, now setting the stage for global war, or we are going to see the end of democracy as we know it with martial law the end result.
.: David Shayler :.

Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.
.: Albert Einstein :.